177 comments:

This is insane. Children are routinely abused and this very same agency consistently fails to react in a timely manner. Foster homes abuse children and again the agency fails to react in a timely manner. Mother's commit felonies and they get to keep their kids. This system is a racket for those employed by it and needs serious reform.

When it comes to the drug war, we sacrifice all of our principles and think us good for it. I mean EVERYTHING we value, from due process, liberty, even basic human rights to raise a family. Even the war on terror hasn't made us as crazy. And, this is all over something a majority have done themselves. I've never been a terrorist, and I don't know any, but smoking pot? We need to get a grip.

We foster parents want to know (though we rarely DO know) that the kids who come to live with us have been taken away from monstrous situations. I would be pissed off to learn that my foster son was taken away from his biological parents because dad got caught with a joint.

Whatever the drug of choice is, it will be a factor in the child custody & visitation game. It's pretty ironic to see one partner in the doper couple, whichever one happened to get caught and go to rehab first, go after the ex for still doing the meth or painkillers or whatever. Rightly so, I guess, but still so pathetic.

It's all an ugly endless game that plenty of lawyers are happy to leave to the pro se litigants themselves when the money runs out.

I disagree with the idea that marijuana is worse than tobacco. But even if it were, how much worse is it and in what way? From what I understand marijuana is less addictive or possibly not addictive at all, depending on the study. And it has less health affects.

Whatever the case is though. I view it as far less of a concern as compared to alcohol.

edutcher, why do you say that marijuana is worse than tobacco? I mean, it has more tar per unit dose, that is a fact. But it is also not smoked 20 to 40 times a day like tobacco is. And in terms of how it is used, it is not as bad for the lungs as tobacco. So I am curious to understand your reasoning.

My opinion re: pot has changed 180 degrees in the past few years. Because of cases like this and because our absurd circuitous route to legalization via "medical marijuana" (what other pharmaceutical agent is SMOKED?), I say

The excerpt makes it sound as if the children were removed because the parents were in possession of marijuana but the article makes it sound as if there were other problems, the marijuana arrest was just what got the social services people's attention.

The question is, should parents arrested for small amounts get further scrutiny?

If you really want to crap on stuff. Hurt the kids! And, then wait for them to grow up!

A "joint" never killed anybody!

THE JOINT, however, is stupid and cruel. Sometimes filled with felons. But ALL of those inside ... put a notch on the belts of schmucks. Who went to law school. And, then went into various government employ.

The pot would be only one of the factors and the one the perps point to because they know the fuzzyheaded liberal douchenozzles will be all sympathetic to the plight of the poor innocent pot head. Who is getting high and not feeding her kids. Or letting them live in a shit pile.

Oh, come on. The Times is laboring overtime to pretend that the admittedly "small number" of parents who actually faced sanctions did so because of marijuana, and only marijuana. Their efforts don't pass the smell test, right from the first example:

"The police found about 10 grams of marijuana, or about a third of an ounce, when they searched Penelope Harris’s apartment in the Bronx last year."

Why were they searching the apartment? I guess we don't need to know. Then there's the guy in the homeless shelter -- held forth by the Times as proof of the claims they're making -- and he is living in a homeless shelter, using drugs and alcohol against the shelter's rules, and there are other indications of neglect.

When challenged, his taxpayer-funded lawyers, whom the Times allows to dominate the "reporting," say they can't discuss the actual facts because of "confidentiality." The entire article is a poorly-done set-up.

People (and newspapers) who criticize child protection as "fascist" are speaking from extreme ignorance. You should see (and smell) the conditions that don't meet the level of removing the child (and the ones that do).

When child protective services comes in and takes kids away it is always for a lot more than just pot smoking.

The open drug use is part of a pattern of neglect that is easy to spot when you visit the home. Insect bites. Dirty clothes. Crap strewn everywhere in the house. No food but snack shit like potato chips and soda. Chronic truancy. Inappropriate sexualization of children. Lot's of "uncles" who sleep over.

I have a friend who worked for CPS for ten years. She saw some of the worst things you could ever see. She was in spots where she knew the kids were at risk and needed to be taken out of the home but her supervisor stopped it. A caring caseworker would use any excuse to get a kid out of a bad situation. Even a petty pot arrest. You use the tools you have.

She had to quit. The things she saw just broke her.

I am not big on social worker bullshit but there are some real bad people out there. Don't kid yourself. I would prefer vigilantes who would go in and beat the shit out of the abusive parents and threaten their lives if they didn't shape up.

In 1969 there was a kid in my class who always came to school with bruises and marks. Once he came in with two black eyes. We tried to get him to tell us what was going on. But he wouldn't talk. So a friend of ours went to the social club to talk to his uncle about it.

Then next month when that kid's father got out of the hospital it was all good. He never had another bruise.

Remember Thomas Ball, the guy in New Hampshire who set himself on fire in front of the courthouse? In his "Last Statement" he talks about "The Second Set of Books", the first book being the rule of law, which is public. "The Second Set of Books" is the unwritten procedures that the legal system uses to flex their power when the law comes up short.

I thought of that concept last week when Madison Officer Fatboy told Chris that he could have been arrested for Disorderly Conduct for attempting to intervene in a physical confrontation against his mother. Not that the charges would have stood - that was not the intention of Officer Fatboy. His intention was to inconvenience Chris - especially since Chris was from out of town, and it would not have been worth his while to fight the charge.

Hey I am the last guy to say the government should have the power to take kids away but some people are just fucking animals. I agree that the state should not be involved but that the responsible members of the community should come forward when parents abuse their children by beating them or making them protest in the Wisconsin capital building.

I guess NYC Child Care Protective Services (What a joke that is) has solved all of the other glaring problems it had to deal with and is now dealing with this problem. Who here raise your hands and call this another form of taxation by another nebulous and nefarious governmental department?

Maybe social conservatives and libertarians can come to agreement on this one.

The state is abusing children.

Henry, have you stopped and thought to yourself firs that this isn't a social conservative issue, but rather a governmental intrusion issue? Conservatives don't make people smoke pot legally or illegally.

In a perfect world the state should not be involved. I know they have to be. I just told you that there are terrible people out there giving their kids drugs and teaching them to be liberal Democrats. Reason enough for them to be yanked out of their homes. It is just that the bar has to be set high that's all.

Hey I am the last guy to say the government should have the power to take kids away but some people are just fucking animals. I agree that the state should not be involved but that the responsible members of the community should come forward when parents abuse their children by beating them or making them protest in the Wisconsin capital building.

Unfortunately too many of the CPS people get jaded. The horrors that they see can destroy them or coarsen them to the point that they are just time servers. There should be a time limit to how long they can serve.

There are some really fucked up people out there that the state has to step in and stop.

I can hardly wait to hear his perfected lie speech about "Job Creation" coming after 30 days of polishing it.

Here we have a nice start:

When I go into factories these days, what’s amazing is how clean and how quiet they are, because what used to take 1,000 folks to do now only takes 100 folks to do.” But

And here I thought ATM's killed jobs or something.

PS:Regulatory agencies have seen their combined budgets grow a healthy 16% since 2008, topping $54 billion, according to the annual “Regulator’s Budget,” compiled by George Washington University and Washington University in St. Louis.

That’s at a time when the overall economy grew a paltry 5%.

Meanwhile, employment at these agencies has climbed 13% since Obama took office to more than 281,000, while private-sector jobs shrank by 5.6%.

I do feel a little sorry for presidents - Bush or Obama they get blamed for everything.

This is true about celebrities in general though? It's not that different than crucifying Lindsay Lohan or some idiotic celebrity of the moment all over the place. Media sets the tone I guess and John Q. Public picks up on it.

Next thing you know my kids are being taken away by Child Protective Services and I'm blaming Lindsay Lohan.

Property or wards of their parents.Property or wards of the state.Independent persons.

Unfortunately, the modern trend is to consider them wards of the state. As a non-breeder who has paid a fortune in taxes to support breeding and mis-education of children by others, I consider it mere poetic justice to see parents now hoisted with own petards.

I feel like the Pied Piper: if parents want their children back, they might start by putting an end to a system that confiscates my wealth and income to support their breeding. Until that happens, I heartily recommend piping their children away to state oblivion.

What says more than anything is that CPS is one of the only places where you can get a job because, not in spite of, having a Social Sciences degree.

I've dealt with those services. They're loaded with insane people with agendas, typically anti-male.

I listened to a lecture by one just a couple of years ago where she actually said "Children never lie about sexual abuse." When presented with a case only fifty miles from where she was lecturing where a woman attempted to yank a child from his father by manipulating the kid on tape for the trial (forgetting to erase the manipulation) and so lost all custody, the woman said "I don't have any respect for the legal system."

Troop, needless to say, I have a different view of CPS than you because we have had different experiences.

@Methadras -- My point, perhaps not too well implied, is that social conservatives have a stake in preserving the family as an institution against unwarranted government interference. Libertarians have a stake in limiting government period.

"Unwarranted" is the key word. Trooper York's comments ring true, but some situations are a good deal more complicated. You can have competing parents or relatives using the law as a wedge against each other. You can have children calling social services as a way to avoid parental authority (yes I know of a case of this).

It's a hugely messy problem that escapes easy solutions about how and when the state can intervene. I do think the framework for when intervention is permissible need not include minor pot use.

Oh I don't doubt all that you say is true. But there are some good people who try hard. But they get swallowed up and become hard core crazies like you cite or they quit. It is a real bad job. I couldn't do it. I would get arrested the first day I saw a kid with cigarette burns and beat the living shit out of whoever did it.

@phx - I'm just curious, since NYC has a huge problem with illegal (untaxed) cigs, and there are always problems with minors and booze - and why should you be able to get one mind-altering substance (weed) 3 years before you can get another (booze).

The public should be protected from those in authority who aren't trying hard. If they burn out and don't quit, are they fired, or just promoted to oversee others?

I've said this many times: the problem with most managers on the public payroll is that they want to be liked. They don't want to do the hard work of prioritizing and firing -- they would rather ask for money.

@TG I don't think I'm trying to build a wall between Obama's style of governing and state and local governing styles.

Rather I think you want to draw a connection between Obama and abuse of DUI and CPS programs based on something you might hear in a barbershop rather than something actually out of leadership theory ("fish rots down").

"At war with Federal machinery" "fascist business" "killed off by a corrupt Czar."

Are you interested in fixing our problems or winning an Academy Award?

What an insane statement. People lie. They lie about all sorts of things. Children are people. They tend to lie even more than adults. So of course they lie about sexual abuse.

When younger, they lie because they are coached to do so. When they get older, some lie to try to manipulate the system or attempt to ruin someone's life. But kids do indeed lie about sex abuse.

I have been working in the field for 20 years, and I have seen and heard some whoppers about it. Not the number of true and accurate reports has been much higher than the lies I have heard, but I have heard lies.

Trooper, it is a real bad job and the pay is worse. So the people who work the job are typically unqualified. Not through any fault of their own, but because the state's won't pay enough to hire people with a MA or better.

It is a heartbreaking job. People might go into it with the best of intentions but the day to day misery and horror will beat them down one way or another.

I know a woman who was very qualified and had all the academic credentials and went home to NOLA to work at CPS. And was laid off of a job she took at a substantailly lower salary because she wanted to live a life of service. But her supervisor didn't like her attitude and she was the one they let go while the drones and the time servers stayed on.

That is why it is bad for the government to be involved so much. But I don't know another solution.

The problem with eradicating the "War on Drugs" is that nobody knows what that means. Do we legalize heroin, cocaine, etc. and then sit around pondering why there are so many addicts, thieves, homeless kids, etc.? Do we ask the Govt to take charge of distributing hard drugs to those who request it? Do we open the borders to drug cartels? Weed shouldn't even be in the discussion. In many States, possession equals a $100 fine and a hardy "be on your way", so that's hardly the tip of the spear. As a guy with a Libertarian bent, I oppose draconian drug laws, as an intelligent human I understand the need to learn from the past. Crack, smack, etc. weren't banned because of their color or texture, but because of the obvious mental and moral decay of so many users. In a society that bans fats, salts, etc., the ban on meth should be the last to go.

The article seemed kind of short on actual facts of the overall cases but I didn’t find either of the two examples they gave – the 23 year old in a homeless shelter who claims he only resumed smoking pot to get his appetite back and to relieve the pain after a tooth was pulled or the 31 year old woman with a foster kid who claimed that the bags of pot found in her home belonged to her boyfriend for his “personal use” – to be particularly sympathetic or believable. I suspect that there were other reasons that got them on the radar of child protective services.

"If the federal government’s regulatory operation were a business, it would be one of the 50 biggest in the country in terms of revenues, and the third largest in terms of employees, with more people working for it than McDonald’s, Ford, Disney and Boeing combined. . .

Regulatory agencies have seen their combined budgets grow a healthy 16% since 2008, topping $54 billion. . . That’s at a time when the overall economy grew a paltry 5%.

Meanwhile, employment at these agencies has climbed 13% since Obama took office to more than 281,000, while private-sector jobs shrank by 5.6%.

This is just sick. about 75% of my practice is domestic law, and thankfully Mississippi is sane enough that if your drug use doesn't harm your child, we will not take your kid away from you solely on that basis.

Also, we have some of the most spectacularly incompetent child welfare services in the country, but they know the difference between a stash and a book.

Do we legalize heroin, cocaine, etc. and then sit around pondering why there are so many addicts, thieves, homeless kids, etc.? All the illegal drugs are getable, if you are interested. I think more people might use marijuana if it were legal, but I doubt you’d have too large an increase in the people who are stupid enough to abuse hard drugs. I don’t actually mind hard drugs staying illegal, but drug use should mostly just carry a fine. All these huge minimum sentences for people who use drugs, when people who have actually hurt or stolen from someone else get shorter sentence? That's insane.

I always think more of the 7 year old girl being rented out by her mother for crack money than I do of some career dope dealer having to do time. Anyway, if we're going to start "legalizing" things, we should start with the least harmful. By the time we get to heroin and coke, I'll be long dead.

Shanna, when I lived in MA, every single argument for "decriminalizing" pot was made, and they carried the day. Didn't bother me. But the fact was, of course, that every single "pro-pot, common-sense" result failed to materialize. The jails aren't suddenly empty, hard drug use is still rising, the courts are still clogged.

The agency’s petition also said that his daughter did not always have adequate clothing, that shelter workers once smelled alcohol on Mr. Gunnell’s breath and that his room was dirty and had an odor.

I've been poor. All of these CPS criterion would have fit me. Should parents lose their parental rights just because they are poor? Or just because the upper crust of the population loves to inflate misdemeanors into felonies for the poor? It's a huge injustice in a free society.

I haven't meet a child protective services state agency yet that could not use some oversight on how they use power to disrupt.

The mom in this case is going to get saddled with a $5000 payment for counseling services. That is the ugly money making dirt behind CPS agencies. A huge progressive tax on the poor.

Too many police who like taking after ordinary folk because it makes their arrest statistics go up.

A policeman knowing his/her job would lose said job if a hint of child neglect was not reported. And in this case no arrest? the fault here is in the ivory towered Child Protection Services agency run by the state.

"... Do we legalize heroin, cocaine, etc. and then sit around pondering why there are so many addicts, thieves, homeless kids, etc.?.."

This is a bullshit argument because it assumes once legalized, those who didn't snort coke or shoot heroin will suddenly decide to become drug addicted losers.

Well we have some pretty tough laws now and gave plenty of addicts,.thieves and homeless kids and we're spending billions fighting a losing war.

Legalize, tax and regulate. We'd empty 50% of the prison population overnight, deal a death blow to the drug cartels and probably stablize Mexico in the process. Consider the tax revenue we would get in return with a halved prison population plus saving Mexico 10-15k cartel related deaths per year, I'd say that's a decent tradeoff for a few extra addicts.

Sorry but you can't save everyone and our current drug policy is saving no one.

The 34-point drop in the Philly Fed index was the largest since October 2008 . . .

and the summary:

What the Philly Fed index does show — along with the selloff on Wall Street, the rally in gold and bond markets, and the gloomy mood on Main Street — is that faith in the markets and in the economy and in politics have been shaken.

Once confidence is lost, it is not easily regained. And confidence is what we need before we’ll invest in the future.

The world could sure use a leader right now, but whom do you trust to lead us back to prosperity? A technocrat? A prophet? A salesman? Maybe each other?

Where is BHO - on vacation. Where is his plan, not due till September. That's leadership.

We need more orphanages. Take the kids away from the drug addled and reality show addled parents. Is any wonder so many kids can't read or write? And we blame the schools and teachers when it's garbage in garbage out.

Trooper - both Nutter and the Nanny mayors suck but at least Nutter is not a huge PC buttinsky like your Greenberg is. I think we need to start electing some new type of mayors who can bring tough love to their crappy cities.

Jeff - our biggest deficit is a confidence deficit. Prez Obama, the Dems and the Repubs have destroyed most of the country's confidence. It won't get better until someone with a little vision can bring our confidence back.

Why neighborhood vigilantes of course. Keep the cops out of it. You need to police your own block. The cops are really worthless and the lawyers even more so.

Didn't we just see that in London? What good did the cops and the lawyers and the law do for the shop owners and the regular people who are faced with the animals? Did they send in the lawyers to save them?

A "bullshit argument"? Pay attention, dickweed, I didn't make any argument at all. I want to know what comes next, and just taxing crank ain't it. Stop presuming you know what I'm going to say just because you hyave the NORML talking points memorized. I've hyeard them all a million times before. I want to deal with the issue in the real world.

Every news report I have ever seen that was about something I knew about was wrong. Therefore, I do not believe anything they report on things which I do not know.

I've seen about 4 news stories in the national media that I had personal knowledge of. Each one was slanted to project a point of view and was missing some serious facts. It was like the slant was crowding out the facts.

Every news report I have ever seen that was about something I knew about was wrong. Therefore, I do not believe anything they report on things which I do not know.

This is so true! Did you know Blanche lost her last election in Arkansas in 2010 because she just wasn’t liberal enough (that's totally why she lost to a republican)? Also, there were approximately 87 cop cars at a basketball game fight when I was in high school. And on and on…

Moving along from the same tired arguments that have been made for forty years, let's see what might happen when hard drugs are legalized...

A: Can't test for them on the job, violation of privacy, human dignity, etc.B: They must comply with FDA regulations governing narcotics, etc....hmmmm...how will that work exactly?C: Make sure they're manufactured by a company that pays taxes, so that means Merck, etc. will be in the business of mixing up meth.D: If it's legal, it means the Government-dependents among us have a "right" to it, as has been demonstrated a million times before. How does cost-distribution work there?E: We'll need a Narco-czar to make sure that the revenues from the taxed heroin get directed to the right programs (possibly to Narcotics Anonymous in a world-class circle jerk maneuver?)

The Giants made a big mistake by sharing revenue with the pissant towns like Green Bay. They should have kept all the money for themselves and they would have been like the Yankees.....grinding the little people under the heel of the Evil Empire.

You can test for drugs and alcohol per Union negotiations, not as a matter of course. Public School Teachers almost never get tested, for instance.As to mandatory minimums, I guess that's a States rights thing. It is absurd and tragic to send someone to jail for 10 years for smoking a joint, but just as absurd to let a guy off with probation for possessing 10 pounds of the Himalayan wham-wham. I have to trust the States to make their own decisions. Fed minimums should not exist unless there is a real Fed violation. They play fast and loose with those distinctions when it comes to guns/drugs.

Yawn. Same old garbage. Tell me what you think WOLL happen when cocaine, heroin, meth, PCP are more widely available and dirt cheap. All of a sudden prisons will close, tax revenues will soar, and peace will descend on our inner-cities? Get a fucking grip.

"That's a meaningless statement, since the existing FDA regulations for narcotics state that they aren't generally available for purchase."

Now there's a meaningless statement. In order to be "legalized", heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, etc. would have to pass FDA muster. Can't legalize them without that. Or is that too thinky for you to digest all at once?

And as far as things not being subsidized as a "right", I steer you towards Viagra and hi-speed Internet access. We're dealing with Congress, so it's desirability that matters. A crack pipe is both bread and circus all rolled into one. How nice for the people.

Didn't Bush sign into law a bill that heavily subsidizes legal drugs? Didn't Obama say free health care was a right? It really doesn't take much to imagine addicts demanding free drugs from the government under either plan.

".. A "bullshit argument"? Pay attention, dickweed, I didn't make any argument at all. I want to know what comes next, and just taxing crank ain't it. Stop presuming you know what I'm going to say just because you hyave the NORML talking points memorized. I've hyeard them all a million times before. I want to deal with the issue in the real world...."

That's Mr. Dickweed to you sparky.

I laid out a few other benefits which you dismissed as talking points which I guess is your way of saying la la I cant hear you.

What comes next? I dunno do I look like fucking Carnack? Here's what I do know. The current drug policy sucks and it sucks big time. I can point to Prohibition as a good example of trying to save people from self inflicted stupidity is a total failure. What you got?

The nightmarish world of widespread violence, theft, and addiction that you envision is the one you're already living in today. You just aren't paying any attention to it. Anyone who wants meth or cocaine can get it. It is just expensive, which is why addicts routinely rob people.

Here's what would happen, were "hard" drugs legalized:

1. Homicide and property crime rates would drop. The high cost of hard drugs is a major cause of both categories of crime.

2. The number of users would increase, although not by much. Pretty much everybody interested in trying drugs already has.

3. DUI rates would have a corresponding increase due to 2.

4. Tax revenues would increase somewhat, although not significantly since there aren't that many users of hard drugs. Expenditures would decrease overall; we would spend a little more on treatment and a lot less on law enforcement.

It wouldn't be a miracle cure for all our society's problems. Ending Prohibition didn't eliminate all crime, and probably increased the rate of alcoholism a bit -- but on the whole it made things much better. This will be no different.

I can point to any number of needle parks. Ever seen any of those garden spots of humanity? I mean the real deal, like in A-dam and Frankfurt. Even those nations with the most "liberal" drug policies find the need to segregate users, dealers, traffickers from regular society. It's not a conspiracy, Puritanism or some sort of money game that keeps hard drugs illegal. It's the fact that every nation in the world, over millennia, has found that those substances lead to a decrease in the quality of life for everyone involved (and not involved). Pretend that PCP = tobacco or Heroin = alcohol if it makes your point easier to elucidate, but the fact is that they are very different.

Use to talk to Dutch naval attaches and they hated what has happened to Amsterdam.

The primary users of drugs in Amsterdam are tourists. That's why the government has been considering restricting drug sales to citizens. Drug use by the Dutch themselves is actually lower than that of Americans.

It wouldn't be a miracle cure for all our society's problems. Ending Prohibition didn't eliminate all crime, and probably increased the rate of alcoholism a bit -- but on the whole it made things much better. This will be no different..

That's based on the faulty premise that-

alcohol=meth and cocaine.

*If* I'm reading you correctly.

And I think your conclusion -[t]his will be no different.- is predicting the future without considering a multitude of variables.

I've abandoned all the moralistic argumemts against meth, heroin, PCP, cocaine, etc., yet you're still coming up with anti-moralist, anti-Prohibitionist boilerplate. Look, if drugs like those are going to be taxed, they will have to be FULLY legalized, which means (presumably) that drugs with fewer known harmful effects will also pass FDA muster by default, no? Will the local clinic offer prescription eight-balls or just vouchers for the local dealer? The Supreme Court will probably decide.Again, if you want to start repealing laws regarding what you are allowed to put in your body, start with salts and fats.

Alcohol is poisonous and addictive. It kills tens of thousands of people a year through overuse and shortens the lifespans of millions more. People drink it anyway, because drinking it is fun. In those respects, yes, alcohol is "equal" to the other drugs you mentioned.

And I think your conclusion -[t]his will be no different.- is predicting the future without considering a multitude of variables.

You are welcome to say what you think they are, but I think you're making the situation a lot more complicated than it actually is.

A certain percentage of the population really likes altering their consciousness. This is why any and all attempts to ban that activity have (a) created a black market and (b) failed. You cannot change human nature through legislation.

I haven't said about the morality of banning drugs. I am using the anti-prohibition argument because it happens to be correct. The reason you feel the need to come up with new arguments is that you are emotionally involved in a specific conclusion, and searching for arguments that can justify it.

Look, if drugs like those are going to be taxed, they will have to be FULLY legalized, which means (presumably) that drugs with fewer known harmful effects will also pass FDA muster by default, no? Will the local clinic offer prescription eight-balls or just vouchers for the local dealer? The Supreme Court will probably decide.

You're hung up on the word "drug". Alcohol is a drug. So is nicotine. You can buy either one, over the counter, without the involvement of a pharmacy, doctor, or health-care plan. That is how all recreational drugs should be handled.

Take vodka, for example. It is poisonous, addictive, carcinogenic, and easy to overdose on. The FDA gives it the thumbs-up and essentially leaves it up to the user to decide whether or not to ruin his body and his life with it. The same is true of tobacco and caffeine.

If cocaine and heroin are legalized as recreational drugs, like alcohol and tobacco, I would expect them to do the same thing. If they decide to require a doctor's prescription for cocaine then that is indistinguishable from leaving the drugs illegal, because a doctor will no more write you a prescription for cocaine than he would write you a prescription for a Long Island Iced Tea or a pack of Lucky Strikes.

You infer motivations I don't have, revenant. It's like talking to a brick wall. Rest assured, I know every single "pro-legalization of crack based on the highest of principles!" argument there is, and they all blow.

You infer motivations I don't have, revenant [...] Rest assured, I know every single "pro-legalization of crack based on the highest of principles!" argument there is, and they all blow.

The fact that you think a good reason is necessary for something to be legal and no reason is needed for it to be illegal says all I need to know about your motivations and the assumptions underlying them, Lincoln.

It's like talking to a brick wall.

Maybe you should try something other than sarcasm and insults? Present an actual argument for your position and see if you convince anyone to change their minds. As it stands all you've done is make declarative statements about what a post-legalization world would look like an then sneered at everyone who disagreed. Why don't you try explaining why you're right?

For example, explain why heroin would be covered by the government; what's Congress' motivation for passing that law? Explain why all of America would look like a needle park; where are the tens of millions of additional heroin addicts going to come from? That sort of thing. Convince us you're something more than a guy who watched too many after school specials as a kid.

The Big High was an episode of the American television series Dragnet. It aired on the NBC network on November 2, 1967, the program's second season... It is sometimes called "Grass Kills" and is considered comparable to Reefer Madness in terms of exaggerating the marijuana threat.

Los Angeles police officers Joe Friday(Webb) and Bill Gannon (Morgan) are visited one day by one Charles Porter, a wealthy man who's very concerned about the welfare of his only grandchild, Robin Shipley. Porter's concern rises from the fact that his daughter Jean Shipley (Scott) and her husband, computer programmer Paul (Donnelly) admit to using marijuana...

Time passes and Friday and Gannon get a break. One Fred Ludden (Oliver) is arrested for possession and the two detectives get him to admit he got the marijuana for free from the Shipleys. In short order, the police raid the Shipley home, where a pot party is still in progress. The Shipleys, both high, seem more annoyed than anything else at first, even when Gannon retrieves a bag of reefer, about 1 ounce. But when Gannon notices Robin is missing from her playpen, Paul Shipley can't remember where she is, Jean tries to remember, but is having trouble - then runs fearfully to the bathroom. When she gets there she and the detectives see the bathtub is overflowing, Robin still in there, drowned. Jean and Paul, both heartbroken, break down crying. Gannon has to leave the room to throw up, leaving Friday, still holding the bag of grass, to walk towards the camera, his face out of shot. As the familiar Dragnet theme plays, Friday's hand tightens around the bag in rage.

In the end, Paul Shipley is found guilty on a charge of involuntary manslaughter and is placed on probation. Jean Shipley, apparently driven mad by her grief, is not charged but sent to a mental institution.

In the Simpsons episode "Weekend at Burnsie's" the scene where Mr. Burns is found dead in his bathtub is apparently inspired by this episode.